DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Schindler v. Gage, 59 So. 2d 215.

15 citing documents.

  • McMullan v. Travelers Insurance Co. 311 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    (Orl.La.App., 1952); Blue Ribbon Cleaners v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Potts v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, (La.
  • Seaton v. Widlitze 258 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    Schindler v. Gage, La.App., .” the defendant was executing a left hand turn and had crossed three traffic lanes before being struck by an automobile being driven in a fourth lane.
  • Austin v. Travelers Insurance Co. 236 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    Schindler v. Gage, La.App., .” Other cases recognizing the principle of Blue Ribbon Cleaners, that a motorist must allow sufficient time for vehicles to clear an intersection before proceeding therein after receiving the favorable signal, (La.App.
  • Bettis v. Paulsen-Webber Cordage Corp. 217 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
    32:232(1) (a); Earles v. Volentine, La.App., ; Martin v. Slocum, La.App., ; Dupuy v. Maury, La.App., ; Potts v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, La.App., ; Blue Ribbon Cleaners v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., La.App., ; Schindler v. Gage, La.App., .
  • Earles v. Volentine 191 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1967
  • Fruge v. Aetna Insurance 194 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    2nd Cir. 1962); (Orl.La.App.1952); (Orl.La.App.1952).
  • Vico Insurance Co. v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 177 So. 2d 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    See Schindler v. Gage, La.App., ; Sangree v. Grilletta, La.App., ; Martin v. Slocum, La.App., ; Blue Ribbon Cleaners v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., La.App., .
  • Mooring v. Pomeroy 175 So. 2d 435 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Schindler v. Gage (Orl.App., 1952), La.App., ; Blue Ribbon Cleaners v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (La.App.
  • Allen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 151 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    h the driver of the Ford automobile entered the intersection on a green light, she did not have the right to proceed through the intersection after the light changed which ruling is contrary to the jurisprudence as established, inter alia, by Potts v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., et al., La.App., ; Dupuy v. Maury, La.App., ; and Schindler v. Gage, La.App., .
  • Sittig v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 149 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Schindler v. Gage, La.App.Orleans, 1952, ; Blue Ribbon Cleaners v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., La.App.
  • Martin v. Slocum 147 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
    Schindler v. Gage (Orl.App., 1952), La.App., ; Blue Ribbon Cleaners v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (La.App.
  • Dilworth v. Roberts 138 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    thoroughfare, 40 feet in width; Claiborne is a 30-foot two-way asphalt street.” Counsel for the defendants takes the position “ * * * that Mr. Roberts had a perfect right to continue into the intersection if the light turned to amber just as he was entering it, as the Court apparently found to be the case.” Counsel cites in support of this position the case of Schindler v. Gage, et al., La.App., , in which it was held that even if plaintiff entered an intersection on a green light in his favor,
  • Potts v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company 135 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
    App.Orleans, 1952, ; Blue Ribbon Cleaners v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., La.App.
  • Blue Ribbon Cleaners v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 125 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
    *616 Schindler v. Gage, La.App., .
  • Audubon Insurance v. Duet 102 So. 2d 245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    The fact he believed it didn’t make it so, and I would have to say on the basis of Mr. Fazzio’s testimony that the plaintiff’s act in entering that intersection on a red light was the negligence that was the proximate cause of this accident.” Plaintiff has cited as authority in support of the proposition that defendants truck driver was negligent, Schindler v. Gage, La.App., and Kientz v. Charles Dennery, Inc., 209 La.